From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carvajal v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Nov 8, 2024
No. B325998 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2024)

Opinion

B325998

11-08-2024

VARINA CARVAJAL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Geragos &Geragos, Daniel Tapetillo, and Ben J. Meiselas for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gutierrez, Preciado &House, and Calvin House for Defendants and Respondents.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 21STCV12716, Robert B. Broadbelt, Judge.

Geragos &Geragos, Daniel Tapetillo, and Ben J. Meiselas for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Gutierrez, Preciado &House, and Calvin House for Defendants and Respondents.

EDMON, P. J.

Plaintiff Varina Carvajal appeals following the trial court's entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) based on Carvajal's failure to present LAUSD with a timely government tort claim. We affirm as plaintiff did not present a government claim within six months of her injury, failed to obtain relief from LAUSD or the trial court from the timely claim presentation requirement, and is precluded from arguing in the present case that she should be relieved from the timely claim presentation requirement since this issue was decided in a previous case.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Carvajal's Injury

Carvajal works as a special needs teacher for LAUSD; her job involves visiting homes of special needs students who require home schooling. On May 8, 2019, she went to the home of a special needs student, who became agitated and violent. When she attempted to intervene in the student's attack on his mother, the student's brother punched her in the head multiple times. As a result of the attack, she suffered a brain injury.

II. Carvajal's Workers' Compensation Claim

A week after she was injured, Carvajal signed a "Workers' Compensation Claim Form," which stated that her injury occurred while at a "student's home providing instruction." In the form, she wrote that she was struck in the head several times with a closed fist and suffered injuries to her head, neck, and spine.

Within three days of signing the workers' compensation claim form, Carvajal retained attorney Michael Burgis. On May 20, 2019, Burgis wrote to LAUSD, stating that he had been retained "to prosecute a claim" on Carvajal's behalf. On June 5, 2019, her attorney followed up with another letter designating Carvajal's treating physician. Counsel also prepared an application for adjudication of her claim with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

III. Medical Evaluation

After the injury, Carvajal experienced headaches, dizziness, and short term memory loss. In early November 2019, a neurologist diagnosed her with a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, probable posttraumatic stress disorder, labyrinthine concussion, and cochlear concussion. Carvajal told the doctor that her headaches occurred three to four days a week, lasting two hours to the entire day. She also reported that her memory was impaired, she had difficulty concentrating, she was unable to drive because she lacked a sense of direction, and she suffered pain in many parts of her body.

IV. Application for Leave to File a Late Government Claim

On May 7, 2020, Carvajal retained new counsel, the firm of Geragos &Geragos. The same day, the law firm presented LAUSD with an application for leave to file a late claim. The application asserted leave should be granted because Carvajal had been incapacitated for the year following the incident, and the presentation delay was caused by her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

In June 2020, LAUSD denied the application, and stated:" 'If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court [within six months] for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4."

All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. Section 945.4 requires the timely presentation of a government tort claim to the public entity before bringing a suit for money damages.

V. Petition for Relief from the Claim Presentation Requirement

In December 2020, Carvajal filed a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement pursuant to section 946.6 (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. 20STCP04170). Carvajal asserted she should be relieved of the timely claim presentation requirement due to excusable neglect and incapacity. LAUSD opposed the motion. On March 3, 2021, Judge Malcolm Mackey granted Carvajal's petition, finding both excusable neglect and mental incapacity.

If the public entity denies the application, section 946.6 allows the injured party to petition the trial court for relief from the presentation requirement.

On April 1, 2021, LAUSD filed a writ petition asking this court to reverse the trial court's decision. While the writ was pending, Carvajal filed the complaint in the present action (No. 21STCV12716). She alleged negligence, breach of mandatory duty, fraudulent concealment/failure to disclose, assault and battery, false imprisonment, and violations of title 42 of the United States Code, section 1983. According to her complaint, although LAUSD knew the student and his brother had a history of violent acts, it fraudulently concealed that information from Carvajal. She also alleged that the trial court had granted her relief from the timely government claim presentation requirement.

On April 29, 2021, this court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its March 3, 2021 order and issue a new order denying Carvajal's petition, or to show cause why it should not do so. This court explained that it appeared the trial court erred in concluding Carvajal had demonstrated both excusable neglect and mental incapacity to excuse the untimely filing of her claim against petitioner. On May 6, 2021, Judge Mackey vacated his March 3, 2021 order and issued a new order denying Carvajal's petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement. Carvajal did not appeal from Judge Mackey's May 6, 2021 order.

On July 6, 2021, Carvajal petitioned the Supreme Court for review of this court's alternative writ of mandate (S269690). On September 15, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the petition stating: "The petition for review is denied without prejudice to any claims that either party might raise on appeal from the final judgment." We grant Carvajal's September 3, 2024 motion to augment the record, which included her July 6, 2021 petition and the Supreme Court's denial.

VI. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Then, LAUSD filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the present action. LAUSD argued Carvajal's state tort claims should be dismissed because Carvajal failed to present a timely government claim and the claims were preempted by her workers' compensation remedy. LAUSD also contended the title 42 United States Code section 1983 claims should be dismissed because LAUSD was immune from liability as an arm of the state. In support of its motion, LAUSD requested judicial notice of its writ petition, the alternative writ issued by this court, and the trial court's minute order subsequently denying relief from the claim filing requirement. Carvajal did not oppose LAUSD's motion on the merits, but instead requested that the court enter judgment for LAUSD so she could appeal the untimely claim presentation issue. Carvajal also argued that the workers' compensation exclusivity rule did not prohibit her suit.

In August 2022, Judge Robert B. Broadbelt granted LAUSD's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Carvajal failed to satisfy the timely claim presentation requirement for the state law claims, and LAUSD was immune from liability under title 42 of the United States Code, section 1983. In October 2022, the trial court entered judgment dismissing Carvajal's action. Carvajal timely appealed from the judgment entered in case No. 21STCV12716.

DISCUSSION

Carvajal appeals the judgment on the pleadings solely as to her state law claims. She argues that LAUSD should have afforded her leave to present a late claim based on excusable neglect and physical and mental incapacity, and that the trial court's initial ruling granting her relief from the claim presentation requirement was correct. As we explain, Carvajal is precluded from relitigating whether she should be relieved from the timely claim presentation requirement.

I. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Assuming the truth of the complaint's properly pleaded allegations and considering matters that may be judicially noticed, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Lopez v. Escamilla (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 763, 765; Southern California Edison Co. v. City of Victorville (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 218, 227.)" '[J]udgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution.'" (Southern California Edison, at p. 227.) "We review de novo the judgment following the granting of a motion for judgment on the pleadings." (SP Investment Fund I, LLC v. Cattell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 898, 905.)

The Government Claims Act (section 810 et seq.) regulates suits for damages against public entities and" 'requires the presentation of "all claims for money or damages against local public entities." '" (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 989-990.) Claims for damages for personal injury must be presented "not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action." (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) The date of the accrual of a cause of action "is the date upon which the cause of action would be deemed to have accrued within the meaning of the statute of limitations which would be applicable thereto." (§ 901.)"' "[N]o suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon . . . or has been deemed to have been rejected ...." (§ 945.4.) "Thus, under these statutes, failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity." '" (DiCampli-Mintz, at p. 990.)

If the claimant misses the six-month deadline, she may apply to the public entity for leave to present her claim late, "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action." (§ 911.4, subd. (b).) The public entity shall grant leave to file the claim late if (1) "failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and the public entity was not prejudiced," or (2) the claimant "was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time." (§ 911.6.)

If the public entity does not grant leave, the claimant may seek judicial relief under section 946.6, which requires the court to grant relief if it finds that the injured party sought leave from the public entity "within a reasonable time" not to exceed a year, and that (1) "failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim," or (2) the claimant "was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time." (§ 946.6, subd. (c).)

II. Issue Preclusion Bars Carvajal's Claims Against the District

Here, it is undisputed that Carvajal suffered injury on May 8, 2019, and did not present a government tort claim to LAUSD until May 7, 2020. LAUSD denied her request for leave to file a late claim and the trial court's final order in case No. 20STCP04170 denied her petition for relief from the timely claim presentation requirement under section 946.6. Unquestionably, Carvajal did not present a government claim within six months of her injury as required by section 911.2, subdivision (a).

Carvajal's sole contention on appeal is that she should be relieved of the timely claim presentation requirement due to excusable neglect or incapacity, and that the trial court erred in ultimately denying her relief from the claim presentation requirement. Yet, that ruling was made in a different case and resulted in an appealable order, which she did not appeal. (See Barragan v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1382 (Barragan) ["An order denying a petition for relief from the [government] claim filing requirements is an appealable order."]; Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435, fn. 8 (Ebersol) [same].) "California follows a 'one shot' rule under which, if an order is appealable, appeal must be taken or the right to appellate review is forfeited." (In re Baycol Cases I &II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 761, fn. 8.) "If the ruling is appealable, the aggrieved party must appeal or the right to contest it is lost." (Kinoshita v. Horio (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 959, 967.) The merits of the denial of her section 946.6 petition are thus not properly before us. (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 239 ["If an order is appealable, an aggrieved party must file a timely notice of appeal from the order to obtain appellate review....' "The law of this state does not allow, on an appeal from a judgment, a review of any decision or order from which an appeal might previously have been taken."' "].)

Pointing to the Supreme Court's denial of the petition for review which stated, "The petition for review is denied without prejudice to any claims that either party might raise on appeal from the final judgment," (Los Angeles Unified School District v. Superior Court, petn. den. Sept. 15, 2021, S269690) Carvajal contends that she did not have a final judgment that was appealable until the court's dismissal of the present case. We disagree. Barragan and Ebersol make clear that an order denying a petition for relief from the government claim filing requirement is appealable, and thus is the equivalent of a final judgment for purposes of appeal.

Further, the trial court's previous denial of her section 946.6 petition for relief from the timely claim presentation requirement has preclusive effect here. Issue preclusion "prevents 'relitigation of previously decided issues[.]' . . . It applies only '(1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party.' [Citation.]" (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 327.) The" 'fact that different forms of relief are sought in the two lawsuits is irrelevant.'" (Villacres v. ABM Industries. Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 576.)

In Gurrola v. County of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 145, the Court of Appeal held that all four issue preclusion factors were satisfied under circumstances similar to those at bar. After Gurrola's government claim was rejected as untimely by the County of Los Angeles, Gurrola petitioned the superior court to be relieved from the filing requirements of section 945.4 and the trial court denied the petition. (Id. at pp. 148-149.) Gurrola then filed a lawsuit against the county, alleging his petition for leave to file a late claim was unnecessary and therefore the trial court's earlier denial of the petition had no legal effect on his lawsuit. The trial court subsequently granted the County's demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the denial of the plaintiff's petition constituted a final judgment on the merits that addressed an identical issue: whether his government claim was timely. (Id. at pp. 151-152.)

Carvajal argues "when an appellant raises the same issues on appeal as previously addressed by alternative writ, the writ is not the law of the case and does not preempt review of the issues unless the writ was issued with an opinion after full briefing and opportunity for oral argument," citing Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888. In Kowis, the Supreme Court held that the pretrial summary denial of the defendants' petition for a writ of mandate, in which the defendants challenged the trial court's order deeming them to have admitted the plaintiff's requests for admissions, was not on the merits, did not establish the law of the case, and thus did not preclude the appellate court from reconsidering the issue on defendants' appeal from the judgment. (Id. at p. 899.) Kowis is inapplicable here, where we consider the preclusive effect of a final, appealable order issued in a separate, earlier proceeding.

Like in Gurrola, Judge Mackey here made an appealable adjudication of Carvajal's request for relief from the timely claim presentation requirement in his order denying plaintiff's section 946.6 petition. Carvajal failed to appeal that order and it thus became final. The sole issue actually litigated and necessarily decided in the case before Judge Mackey was whether Carvajal should be excused from the timely claim presentation requirement. This is the identical issue presented in the motion for judgment on the pleadings in the present case and now on appeal. And, the parties are identical in both proceedings.

Plaintiff is clearly precluded from relitigating whether she should be excused from the timely claim presentation requirement. She is also precluded from asserting in her complaint that she has been excused from the timely claim presentation requirement as it was adjudicated in the case before Judge Mackey. The trial court therefore properly granted LAUSD's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

As we affirm the judgment based on issue preclusion, we do not address the other arguments raised by the parties.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent Los Angeles Unified School District is awarded its costs on appeal.

We concur: ADAMS, J. BERSHON, J. [*]

[*] Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

Carvajal v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Nov 8, 2024
No. B325998 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2024)
Case details for

Carvajal v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist.

Case Details

Full title:VARINA CARVAJAL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

Date published: Nov 8, 2024

Citations

No. B325998 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2024)